Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Puppets....

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
May 5, 2004 4:19:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

Stop the good discussions and see what you get.... Puppets. Fricken
puppets. Oh, Let's not have intelligent conversation. Let's all run
and hide, and stick to mommy talk.... Wah, wah, wah..... Table talk is
evil, I have to think and stuff... I have paint questions (no, really,
I do. I just have to become more coherent to ask them.), beer points,
and contemporary history making comments to razor off my chest. FOR
THE GREAT CREATORS-SAKE, SAY SOMETHING NASTY (board-wise) SOMEONE....
or I will........

Mark

More about : puppets

Anonymous
May 5, 2004 11:43:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"mparx66" <parx@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:f1279f72.0405042319.1b2fd3c8@posting.google.com...
> Stop the good discussions and see what you get.... Puppets. Fricken
> puppets. Oh, Let's not have intelligent conversation. Let's all run
> and hide, and stick to mommy talk.... Wah, wah, wah..... Table talk is
> evil, I have to think and stuff... I have paint questions (no, really,
> I do. I just have to become more coherent to ask them.), beer points,
> and contemporary history making comments to razor off my chest. FOR
> THE GREAT CREATORS-SAKE, SAY SOMETHING NASTY (board-wise) SOMEONE....
> or I will........
>
> Mark

FOAD

<Plonk>

--
MJB

Mr. Tin's Painting Workshop:
http://web.newsguy.com/Mrtinsworkshop/
Anonymous
May 6, 2004 4:36:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"MJB" <mrtinj@OLDSguy.com> wrote in message news:<c7aue204sa@news4.newsguy.com>...
> "mparx66" <parx@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:f1279f72.0405042319.1b2fd3c8@posting.google.com...
> > Stop the good discussions and see what you get.... Puppets. Fricken
> > puppets. Oh, Let's not have intelligent conversation. Let's all run
> > and hide, and stick to mommy talk.... Wah, wah, wah..... Table talk is
> > evil, I have to think and stuff... I have paint questions (no, really,
> > I do. I just have to become more coherent to ask them.), beer points,
> > and contemporary history making comments to razor off my chest. FOR
> > THE GREAT CREATORS-SAKE, SAY SOMETHING NASTY (board-wise) SOMEONE....
> > or I will........
> >
> > Mark
>
> FOAD
>
> <Plonk>

FOAD, no clue....

<plonk>, wow....

A sense of humor would serve you.

I simply don't like childishly censored table-talk. On such a broad
board as this, the drawing card, or the character, of this board rests
in it's generalness. What will I see next? Who will I see next? The
topic? TABLE-TALK...
Go to Yahoo's "specific" boards. Wonderful specific topics if that's
what your wargaming life consists of. Dip in and out. But here, it's
more personal, more human (as with Yahoo, just not so constrained). I
think some of the people here have personalities that could rely less
on casualty charts, and more on die rolls... It's simply terrible not
seeing the posts of those that have made this board actually
entertaining and informative any more. Why did I come here in the
first place? Oh, yeah. Wondering why my membership in HMGS did't grant
me a newsletter. Found something better.

I wouldn't 'plonk' you MJB. I'm a man....

Mark

PS Puppets?
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
May 6, 2004 11:28:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"mparx66" <parx@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:f1279f72.0405042319.1b2fd3c8@posting.google.com...
> Stop the good discussions and see what you get.... Puppets. Fricken
> puppets. Oh, Let's not have intelligent conversation. Let's all run
> and hide, and stick to mommy talk.... Wah, wah, wah..... Table talk is
> evil, I have to think and stuff... I have paint questions (no, really,
> I do. I just have to become more coherent to ask them.), beer points,
> and contemporary history making comments to razor off my chest. FOR
> THE GREAT CREATORS-SAKE, SAY SOMETHING NASTY (board-wise) SOMEONE....
> or I will........

Something nasty.

<ducks for cover>

--Ty
Anonymous
May 6, 2004 8:31:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message news:<109kbs56p27rk7c@corp.supernews.com>...
> "mparx66" <parx@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:f1279f72.0405042319.1b2fd3c8@posting.google.com...
> > Stop the good discussions and see what you get.... Puppets. Fricken
> > puppets. Oh, Let's not have intelligent conversation. Let's all run
> > and hide, and stick to mommy talk.... Wah, wah, wah..... Table talk is
> > evil, I have to think and stuff... I have paint questions (no, really,
> > I do. I just have to become more coherent to ask them.), beer points,
> > and contemporary history making comments to razor off my chest. FOR
> > THE GREAT CREATORS-SAKE, SAY SOMETHING NASTY (board-wise) SOMEONE....
> > or I will........
>
> Something nasty.
>
> <ducks for cover>
>
> --Ty

Oh, O.K....George Bush not only doesn't read books, but apparently
doesn't read much of anything else, Iraq "Democratization", U.S. war
deaths in the 700s and headed up, $2.00 plus gas, Iraq prison scandal,
electronic voting machine failures, censorship by Sinclair
Broadcasting, another $25 Billion for three months of the
occupation-(total so far pushing 200 Billion-$600 billion at some
point is looking very likely), outsourcing jobs,only one Enron
conviction-a woman, of course, just like poor little Martha, general
revolt in the scientific community to the misuse of data by the
administration, most of the world rejecting the US policies and
leadership, nearly 50% drop in the US dollar versus the Euro in four
years, non-existant Global Warming making the West a tinder box, under
funded education programs, increasing numbers of people without health
coverage, deficits continue to grow...

No lack of "Something Nasty". Our present inept leadership seems
quite capable of creating lots of nasties.

Over to you, Ty.

BJ

PS Is the Blue in the French 1814 uniform the same shade as in 1803?

Are Old Glory's price increases related to tin prices, general
inflationary pressures, OG's dominance of the market, or does Russ
need a new Mercedes? All of the above?

Why has no one used the new miniature sound circuit boards to allow
sound effects for wargames?
Anonymous
May 7, 2004 11:54:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

>No lack of "Something Nasty". Our present inept leadership seems
>quite capable of creating lots of nasties.
>

And eight years of Clinton proved it even earlier. So what?

Sad thing, it looks like yet another choice of the evils of the two lessers
AGAIN this round.
Anonymous
May 7, 2004 12:00:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

samvanga@aol.com (SamVanga) wrote in message news:<20040507035438.29140.00000986@mb-m13.aol.com>...
> >No lack of "Something Nasty". Our present inept leadership seems
> >quite capable of creating lots of nasties.
> >
>
> And eight years of Clinton proved it even earlier. So what?
>
> Sad thing, it looks like yet another choice of the evils of the two lessers
> AGAIN this round.

BJ: Awww...Sam, That's such a cop out! Come on now, admit that
compromise is at the center of politics and that we will never have a
saint for a President. The perfect can be the enemy of the good.

In any case, I'll take the potentially competent over the demonstrably
incompetent.

BJ
May 7, 2004 1:19:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"Bob Jones" <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
news:<109kbs56p27rk7c@corp.supernews.com>...
> > Something nasty.
> >
> > <ducks for cover>

> Oh, O.K....George Bush not only doesn't read books, blah blah blah blah...

> Over to you, Ty.

Dear Mr. Jones,

After long and extensive consideration lasting almost 1.3 seconds, I am very
sorry to inform you that I must deny with prejudice your request to
re-engage in an off-topic discussion.

I realize that this comes as unwelcome news to you and that it constitutes a
tragic blow. However, I remind you that it's always darkest before the dawn,
that every cloud has a silver lining, etc. I therefore urge you to try to
carry on as best you can and are hopeful that you will find some degree of
success in your other endeavors.

I remain, your most humble and obedient servant,

Ty
May 7, 2004 1:25:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"SamVanga" <samvanga@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040507035438.29140.00000986@mb-m13.aol.com...
> >No lack of "Something Nasty". Our present inept leadership seems
> >quite capable of creating lots of nasties.
> >
>
> And eight years of Clinton proved it even earlier. So what?
>
> Sad thing, it looks like yet another choice of the evils of the two
lessers
> AGAIN this round.

<Begin Obi-Wan Kenobi Voice>

Don't give in to hate, Sam. Do not let Vader, er, Jones, bait you into
another senseless and unending off topic flamewar. That leads to the Dark
Side.

<End Obi-Wan Kenobi Voice>

:-)

--Ty
Anonymous
May 7, 2004 6:55:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

>Don't give in to hate, Sam. Do not let Vader, er, Jones, bait you into
>another senseless and unending off topic flamewar. That leads to the Dark
>Side.

Oh I'm not. Its more of the grey side of the Force. I'm really extremely sad
about the coming election (and its choice of two utterly worthless punks, if
incresing news reports and open letters, etc. are to be believed).

OTOH, Jones could not go totally unanswered less he try to claim victory by
default.

I'm going back to Rise of Nations now. Not as much as fun a human opponent,
but far less "difficult" (in the human sense, not complexity).

Anyone think the movie "Troy" will lead to any new members/products/interest in
wargaming? I didn't even realize it was a regular movie until I saw the Time
Mag. article (thought it was for cable before). At least they got the shape of
the shields right, that is nice.
Anonymous
May 8, 2004 12:58:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message news:<109n6og942d9i49@corp.supernews.com>...
> "Bob Jones" <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
> news:<109kbs56p27rk7c@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > Something nasty.
> > >
> > > <ducks for cover>
>
> > Oh, O.K....George Bush not only doesn't read books, blah blah blah blah...
>
> > Over to you, Ty.
>
> Dear Mr. Jones,
>
> After long and extensive consideration lasting almost 1.3 seconds, I am very
> sorry to inform you that I must deny with prejudice your request to
> re-engage in an off-topic discussion.
>
> I realize that this comes as unwelcome news to you and that it constitutes a
> tragic blow. However, I remind you that it's always darkest before the dawn,
> that every cloud has a silver lining, etc. I therefore urge you to try to
> carry on as best you can and are hopeful that you will find some degree of
> success in your other endeavors.
>
> I remain, your most humble and obedient servant,
>
> Ty

BJ: Given how things are going these days, I can totally understand
your decision, and respect your good judgement in not re-entering the
lists.

Hope your daughter got that telescope.

Mark, you're going to have to accept that EBay and the color of the
French 1813 uniform will remain the focus of this forum-which, It must
be pointed out is down to few postings a day.

BJ
Anonymous
May 8, 2004 3:11:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

In message <109n754r1rrm53e@corp.supernews.com>, Ty
<tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> writes
>"SamVanga" <samvanga@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20040507035438.29140.00000986@mb-m13.aol.com...
>> >No lack of "Something Nasty". Our present inept leadership seems
>> >quite capable of creating lots of nasties.
>> >
>>
>> And eight years of Clinton proved it even earlier. So what?
>>
>> Sad thing, it looks like yet another choice of the evils of the two
>lessers
>> AGAIN this round.
>
><Begin Obi-Wan Kenobi Voice>
>
>Don't give in to hate, Sam. Do not let Vader, er, Jones, bait you into
>another senseless and unending off topic flamewar. That leads to the Dark
>Side.
>
><End Obi-Wan Kenobi Voice>
>
Give in to your Dark Side, Ty, you know you want to. You'll feel better
if you do, you know. Just a little bit - nobody will blame you, and you
will be able to sleep again without the Voices coming in the dead of
night.
--
John Secker
Anonymous
May 8, 2004 3:39:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

>BJ: Awww...Sam, That's such a cop out! Come on now, admit that
>compromise is at the center of politics and that we will never have a
>saint for a President. The perfect can be the enemy of the good.

I'm not looking for a saint. Just someone who is not an open embarrassment.

And, I would say, someone who actually gives a damn about something beyond
his/her own interests. I thought McCain was one such, but then even he got
blinded by the big lights. I'm now beginning to think Goldwater was the last
one, at least he stood for something, but was man enough to change his views
with time.

And, I wouldn't say no to someone who speaks plainly (Rumsfeld has his moments
in this regard, Jesse Ventura as well --and he is not nearly as dumb as some
people think either). Oh well, if wishes were fishes.

Rise of Nations continues to kick me, the computer is just too efficient
compared to me. And, I really wish you could disconnect nukes before the game
even starts. At least the graphics are pretty.
Anonymous
May 8, 2004 6:57:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

>Mark, you're going to have to accept that EBay and the color of the
>French 1813 uniform will remain the focus of this forum-which, It must
>be pointed out is down to few postings a day.

Actually, its down to a -very- few postings a day. And, even a goodish
percentage of them are spam or, as you note, sales ads for Ebay etc.

But it is so gloriously on topic.

Actually, it is funny (not really). I finally decided maybe it was time to get
back into the hobby more directly.

I was at the local hobby shop and found a free pamphlet from the Northwest
Historical Miniatures Gaming Society ("The Citadel"). It looked good and the
price was right, so I was thinking to myself maybe it is time to give the hobby
a chance again.

Anyway, got to reading the articles and the blood started to quicken,
definately would be nice to play humans again, rather than just machines.

Then I found the article "A Quick Jaunt North" by Mr. Brooking. The subject
was a trip to a Canadian event. However, he made several needless, and just
purely snotty comments about U.S. Customs officers.

Since I happen to have friends in the service I am considerably better informed
about the service than is the author of those snotty comments (ex. "...but
borders alsways make me nervous. Granted, the Canadian border has always been
a bit easier than the U.S. given that they sit in their booths and ask probing
questions rather than swaggering out to your car with prominently displayed
sidearms..." "...and telling the nice man (he looked to be of East Indian
extraction, why are ours always big white guys with short hair?)..."

Given how many of my Customs friends are female and/or East Indian, Black,
Hispanic, Asian, or some combination of the above, the author kinda pissed me
off with his irrelevant yet snotty and ignorant commentary.

Still, I read on to the end in which he is again snotty about the Customs
officers, despite polite interest in his trip. "But when I got to the border
guard it got worse, when he heard about the topy soldier convention, he asked
what scale. I mentioned 25mm and he looked at me blankly (but not
unmenacingly) for a couple of seconds and then said "Oh, those metals... I do
1/32 Tamayas myself."

Another reference to the guns follows along with a comment about never knowing
why he was allowed to proceed scot free.

First off, I really did not expect much from Mr. Brooking given his
self-important reference to listening to Al Franken while driving both to and
from the event. Then, the use of words (ex. "border guard" rather than Customs
and Border Protection Officer -or some contraction therof-, or Customs
Inspector) demonstrated his sheer ignorance.

His constant whining about the U.S. Customs' guns was nothing short amazing
stupidity. Had he crossed the border just a few miles east of his route, he
could have seen the Kenneth G. Ward Border Station, named for the Customs
Inspector killed in the line of duty there (fallen Customs and Immigration
officers are listed at the Law Enforcement Memorial).

But what really pissed me off about his article was not his personal ignorance,
stupidity, and self-assumed smug arrogance. It was the lack of editing by the
publishing body. The group could have at least had the courtesy to thank the
people belittled by the article, or told the puke to stay on topic in the first
place.

As it is, I would rather continue to hang out with my friends serving thier
country even if our hobbies are different. Than associate with people who
belittle those who serve for selfish and ignorant reasons (or the people who
care so little they don't even comment in their publication).

For what little good I expect, I am also mailing this to the e-mail addresses
noted for the group's officers.
May 8, 2004 10:49:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

samvanga@aol.com (SamVanga) wrote in message news:<20040508105723.00117.00001039@mb-m12.aol.com>...

Hello Sam Vanga
I think you have definitely missed the boat on this one. Allow me to
elaborate below.

> ......
>
> Then I found the article "A Quick Jaunt North" by Mr. Brooking. The subject
> was a trip to a Canadian event. However, he made several needless, and just
> purely snotty comments about U.S. Customs officers.
*NJH: You have completely missed the true nature and purpose of the
article. You don't know Mr Brooking and yet you launch this
unwarranted attack. You've taken his words and phrases completely out
of context and misattributed all sorts of nefarious motives and
meanings to his words, phrases, and the article. This is not what a
rational, prudent, and reasonable person does when they take issue
with the writings of another person. There are more civilized methods
for taking exception to the writings of another.

> Since I happen to have friends in the service I am considerably better
> informed
> about the service than is the author of those snotty comments (ex. "...but
> borders alsways make me nervous. Granted, the Canadian border has always been
> a bit easier than the U.S. given that they sit in their booths and ask probing
> questions rather than swaggering out to your car with prominently displayed
> sidearms..." "...and telling the nice man (he looked to be of East Indian
> extraction, why are ours always big white guys with short hair?)..."
>
> Given how many of my Customs friends are female and/or East Indian, Black,
> Hispanic, Asian, or some combination of the above, the author kinda pissed me
> off with his irrelevant yet snotty and ignorant commentary.
*NJH: As opposed to your "irrelevant yet snotty and ignorant
commentary" about a person you don't know.

> Still, I read on to the end in which he is again snotty about the Customs
> officers, despite polite interest in his trip. "But when I got to the border
> guard it got worse, when he heard about the topy soldier convention, he asked
> what scale. I mentioned 25mm and he looked at me blankly (but not
> unmenacingly) for a couple of seconds and then said "Oh, those metals... I do
> 1/32 Tamayas myself."
> Another reference to the guns follows along with a comment about never knowing
> why he was allowed to proceed scot free.
*NJH: Many gamers in the Northwest have been moving North and South
for decades (I started in 1971). We all have dozens of stories and
anecdotes about our border crossings. I have my own extensive
collection of good, bad, and ugly stories of border crossings.
Contrary to what you may think the people watching our borders are
human, therefore they are not perfect. For the most part they do a
first rate job, but they do have their fifth rate moments.

> First off, I really did not expect much from Mr. Brooking given his
> self-important reference to listening to Al Franken while driving both to and
> from the event.
*NJH: It's his money and his time, if he wishes to waste it listening
to Franken that's his right as an American. If he had been listening
to Rush, would you have made some petty remark about listening to drug
addicts?

> Then, the use of words (ex. "border guard" rather than Customs
> and Border Protection Officer -or some contraction therof-, or Customs
> Inspector) demonstrated his sheer ignorance.
*NJH: I've crossed the border in Washington, Idaho, Montana, Michigan,
and Maine. The colloquial phrase is "Border Guard" and there is
nothing demaning or disrespectful in the use of such phrase. I don't
get apoplectic when people write Justice Scalia instead of his correct
title Associate Justice Scalia. And, I don't come unglued when people
say Supreme Court or US Supreme Court when the official and correct
title is Supreme Court of the United States.

> His constant whining about the U.S. Customs' guns was nothing short amazing
> stupidity. Had he crossed the border just a few miles east of his route, he
> could have seen the Kenneth G. Ward Border Station, named for the Customs
> Inspector killed in the line of duty there (fallen Customs and Immigration
> officers are listed at the Law Enforcement Memorial).
*NJH: Have you considered the possibility he might have a very good
reason for being concerned, even fearful of firearms? I suspect No. He
may or may not have a reason, but the fact is that you didn't bother
to ask.

> But what really pissed me off about his article was not his personal
> ignorance, stupidity, and self-assumed smug arrogance. It was the lack of
> editing by the publishing body. The group could have at least had the
> courtesy to thank the people belittled by the article, or told the puke to
> stay on topic in the first place.
*NJH: Freedom of Speech is cherished in NHMGS and my own position on
censorship is well documented. The Editor of the NHMGS Citadel has my
full confidence and my full support. If you think you can do a better
job as Editor of the Citadel, join NHMGS and volunteer to be the
Citadel Editor. If the NHMGS BOD thinks you'll do a better job than
the current Editor, they'll give you the job, in fact the current
Editor may be only too happy to divest himself of the responsibility.
If you don't like things, there is a mechanism for change.

> As it is, I would rather continue to hang out with my friends serving thier
> country even if our hobbies are different. Than associate with people who
> belittle those who serve for selfish and ignorant reasons (or the people who
> care so little they don't even comment in their publication).
*NJH: This is rhetorical polemics. For almost 35 years I've had to
cope with the boorish attitudes of people toward, and the humiliating
and denigrating image of, my generation's military service. People who
serve selfishly don't do it for thanks or recognition, we have our own
private reasons for doing it.

> For what little good I expect, I am also mailing this to the e-mail addresses
> noted for the group's officers.
*NJH: This is baloney, you haven't allowed the NHMGS Officer's a
chance to evaluate your concerns and respond to them. If you were
genuinely interested in a response you would have waited for one, but
you didn't. And, now, by publishing this philipic here you eliminate
the possibility for having your missive appear in the Citadel
(copyright infringements). Now we'll never know how they may have
responded to your missive because you have robbed them of an
opportunity to do so.

Did you submit a rebuttal letter to the Editor? Did you send a
rebuttal article to the Editor? Did you try to contact Mr Brooking
regarding your concerns about the slights you perceived in his
article? No, you didn't do anything rational, prudent, or reasonable.
You immediately went to one of our hobby's high profile public forums
to electronically lynch a man you do not know for the most specious of
reasons. What you have done is entirely antithetical to the manner in
which the overwhelming majority of the gamers in the Northwest conduct
themselves in our hobby. You can't possibly imagine how badly you
misunderstand Mr Brooking's article, the Editor, NHMGS leadership, the
NHMGS membership, and the gamers of the Pacific Northwest.

My apologies to one and all for my intemperant post. However, I cannot
allow Mr Vanga's completely erroneous assessment of Mr Brooking's
article, the Editor, NHMGS leadership, the NHMGS membership, and the
gamers of the Pacific Northwest to go unanswered.
I say again, you perceive that which does not exist. I strongly
encourage you to reread the article and re-examine that which you
disparage in the proper context of the entire article.
I do not know how Mr Brooking or other members of NHMGS will respond,
if at all. They are free to express their own opinions. IMHO - You
have definitely missed the boat on this one.
Cheers
NJH
Anonymous
May 9, 2004 12:18:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"Than associate with people who
belittle those who serve for selfish and ignorant reasons (or the
people who
care so little they don't even comment in their publication)."

Sorry Sam, you're just as guilty, no, actually moreso, for doing the
same thing you accuse Arther Brookings of doing. Arthur's article
isn't the issue Sam, it's your response.

You're using a broad brush to paint all the people in the group. Get a
grip Sam, people are individuals and whether or not you realize it,
they shouldn't be lumped together.

By following your example I would conclude that the men and women who
protect our borders are pompous, prejudicial folk like you, simply
because you call them friends. But don't worry, I won't. I'll exercise
my right and good sense to judge people on their own merits.

Perhaps if you tried it you could get back into the hobby although I
can only speculate on what drove you away.










samvanga@aol.com (SamVanga) wrote in message news:<20040508105723.00117.00001039@mb-m12.aol.com>...
> >Mark, you're going to have to accept that EBay and the color of the
> >French 1813 uniform will remain the focus of this forum-which, It must
> >be pointed out is down to few postings a day.
>
> Actually, its down to a -very- few postings a day. And, even a goodish
> percentage of them are spam or, as you note, sales ads for Ebay etc.
>
> But it is so gloriously on topic.
>
> Actually, it is funny (not really). I finally decided maybe it was time to get
> back into the hobby more directly.
>
> I was at the local hobby shop and found a free pamphlet from the Northwest
> Historical Miniatures Gaming Society ("The Citadel"). It looked good and the
> price was right, so I was thinking to myself maybe it is time to give the hobby
> a chance again.
>
> Anyway, got to reading the articles and the blood started to quicken,
> definately would be nice to play humans again, rather than just machines.
>
> Then I found the article "A Quick Jaunt North" by Mr. Brooking. The subject
> was a trip to a Canadian event. However, he made several needless, and just
> purely snotty comments about U.S. Customs officers.
>
> Since I happen to have friends in the service I am considerably better informed
> about the service than is the author of those snotty comments (ex. "...but
> borders alsways make me nervous. Granted, the Canadian border has always been
> a bit easier than the U.S. given that they sit in their booths and ask probing
> questions rather than swaggering out to your car with prominently displayed
> sidearms..." "...and telling the nice man (he looked to be of East Indian
> extraction, why are ours always big white guys with short hair?)..."
>
> Given how many of my Customs friends are female and/or East Indian, Black,
> Hispanic, Asian, or some combination of the above, the author kinda pissed me
> off with his irrelevant yet snotty and ignorant commentary.
>
> Still, I read on to the end in which he is again snotty about the Customs
> officers, despite polite interest in his trip. "But when I got to the border
> guard it got worse, when he heard about the topy soldier convention, he asked
> what scale. I mentioned 25mm and he looked at me blankly (but not
> unmenacingly) for a couple of seconds and then said "Oh, those metals... I do
> 1/32 Tamayas myself."
>
> Another reference to the guns follows along with a comment about never knowing
> why he was allowed to proceed scot free.
>
> First off, I really did not expect much from Mr. Brooking given his
> self-important reference to listening to Al Franken while driving both to and
> from the event. Then, the use of words (ex. "border guard" rather than Customs
> and Border Protection Officer -or some contraction therof-, or Customs
> Inspector) demonstrated his sheer ignorance.
>
> His constant whining about the U.S. Customs' guns was nothing short amazing
> stupidity. Had he crossed the border just a few miles east of his route, he
> could have seen the Kenneth G. Ward Border Station, named for the Customs
> Inspector killed in the line of duty there (fallen Customs and Immigration
> officers are listed at the Law Enforcement Memorial).
>
> But what really pissed me off about his article was not his personal ignorance,
> stupidity, and self-assumed smug arrogance. It was the lack of editing by the
> publishing body. The group could have at least had the courtesy to thank the
> people belittled by the article, or told the puke to stay on topic in the first
> place.
>
> As it is, I would rather continue to hang out with my friends serving thier
> country even if our hobbies are different. Than associate with people who
> belittle those who serve for selfish and ignorant reasons (or the people who
> care so little they don't even comment in their publication).
>
> For what little good I expect, I am also mailing this to the e-mail addresses
> noted for the group's officers.
Anonymous
May 9, 2004 12:48:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

samvanga@aol.com (SamVanga) wrote in message news:<20040508105723.00117.00001039@mb-m12.aol.com>...
> >Mark, you're going to have to accept that EBay and the color of the
> >French 1813 uniform will remain the focus of this forum-which, It must
> >be pointed out is down to few postings a day.
>
> Actually, its down to a -very- few postings a day. And, even a goodish
> percentage of them are spam or, as you note, sales ads for Ebay etc.
>
> But it is so gloriously on topic.
>
> Actually, it is funny (not really). I finally decided maybe it was time to get
> back into the hobby more directly.
>
> I was at the local hobby shop and found a free pamphlet from the Northwest
> Historical Miniatures Gaming Society ("The Citadel"). It looked good and the
> price was right, so I was thinking to myself maybe it is time to give the hobby
> a chance again.
>
> Anyway, got to reading the articles and the blood started to quicken,
> definately would be nice to play humans again, rather than just machines.
>
> Then I found the article "A Quick Jaunt North" by Mr. Brooking. The subject
> was a trip to a Canadian event. However, he made several needless, and just
> purely snotty comments about U.S. Customs officers.
>
> Since I happen to have friends in the service I am considerably better informed
> about the service than is the author of those snotty comments (ex. "...but
> borders alsways make me nervous. Granted, the Canadian border has always been
> a bit easier than the U.S. given that they sit in their booths and ask probing
> questions rather than swaggering out to your car with prominently displayed
> sidearms..." "...and telling the nice man (he looked to be of East Indian
> extraction, why are ours always big white guys with short hair?)..."
>
> Given how many of my Customs friends are female and/or East Indian, Black,
> Hispanic, Asian, or some combination of the above, the author kinda pissed me
> off with his irrelevant yet snotty and ignorant commentary.
>
> Still, I read on to the end in which he is again snotty about the Customs
> officers, despite polite interest in his trip. "But when I got to the border
> guard it got worse, when he heard about the topy soldier convention, he asked
> what scale. I mentioned 25mm and he looked at me blankly (but not
> unmenacingly) for a couple of seconds and then said "Oh, those metals... I do
> 1/32 Tamayas myself."
>
> Another reference to the guns follows along with a comment about never knowing
> why he was allowed to proceed scot free.
>
> First off, I really did not expect much from Mr. Brooking given his
> self-important reference to listening to Al Franken while driving both to and
> from the event. Then, the use of words (ex. "border guard" rather than Customs
> and Border Protection Officer -or some contraction therof-, or Customs
> Inspector) demonstrated his sheer ignorance.
>
> His constant whining about the U.S. Customs' guns was nothing short amazing
> stupidity. Had he crossed the border just a few miles east of his route, he
> could have seen the Kenneth G. Ward Border Station, named for the Customs
> Inspector killed in the line of duty there (fallen Customs and Immigration
> officers are listed at the Law Enforcement Memorial).
>
> But what really pissed me off about his article was not his personal ignorance,
> stupidity, and self-assumed smug arrogance. It was the lack of editing by the
> publishing body. The group could have at least had the courtesy to thank the
> people belittled by the article, or told the puke to stay on topic in the first
> place.
>
> As it is, I would rather continue to hang out with my friends serving thier
> country even if our hobbies are different. Than associate with people who
> belittle those who serve for selfish and ignorant reasons (or the people who
> care so little they don't even comment in their publication).
>
> For what little good I expect, I am also mailing this to the e-mail addresses
> noted for the group's officers.

I'm tempted to make a derogatory comment against you, but I don't make
circumstantial ad Hominem attacks against people (such as you do)
based on such limited information.

~Chris Yoder
Anonymous
May 9, 2004 2:07:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"Ed Teixeira" <az_sunsets73@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eb32c70a.0405081918.1fdc8eeb@posting.google.com...
>>
> Perhaps if you tried it you could get back into the hobby although I
> can only speculate on what drove you away.
>

Hi Ed!

<waves cheerily>

BBBob tells me you're back in the PacNW. Hope it's working-out.

--
MJB

Mr. Tin's Painting Workshop:
http://web.newsguy.com/Mrtinsworkshop/
Anonymous
May 9, 2004 3:38:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message news:<109kbs56p27rk7c@corp.supernews.com>...
> "mparx66" <parx@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:f1279f72.0405042319.1b2fd3c8@posting.google.com...
> > Stop the good discussions and see what you get.... Puppets. Fricken
> > puppets. Oh, Let's not have intelligent conversation. Let's all run
> > and hide, and stick to mommy talk.... Wah, wah, wah..... Table talk is
> > evil, I have to think and stuff... I have paint questions (no, really,
> > I do. I just have to become more coherent to ask them.), beer points,
> > and contemporary history making comments to razor off my chest. FOR
> > THE GREAT CREATORS-SAKE, SAY SOMETHING NASTY (board-wise) SOMEONE....
> > or I will........
>
> Something nasty.
>
> <ducks for cover>
>
> --Ty

I can tell, you've been itching..... ;) 

Mark
Anonymous
May 9, 2004 4:02:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

>
> Mark, you're going to have to accept that EBay and the color of the
> French 1813 uniform will remain the focus of this forum-which, It must
> be pointed out is down to few postings a day.
>
> BJ

Bob,

Nope. Never. Can't be. In all things, one faces two. Left dances with
right. Illness coos to cure. Hot and cold balm one-another. Water and
desert embrace. In no way, shape, or form should this board be denuded
of it's broad scope, it's sweeping intellect, and it's opposites. A
table musters four sides and is in harmony, can't we at least come up
with two?

The French didn't have enough to do with white material while an
Italian-Corsican was in charge so they fouled everything up be using
it for uniforms without thinking of the future (the Italian-Corsican
wasn't going to be around forever). An eye to history would've kept
blue, blue... ;) 

Mark

PS EBay's not bad.
Anonymous
May 9, 2004 4:18:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

highwiremedia@earthlink.net (Bob Jones) wrote in message news:<73e9b810.0405061531.4f02c59d@posting.google.com>...
> "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message news:<109kbs56p27rk7c@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "mparx66" <parx@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> > news:f1279f72.0405042319.1b2fd3c8@posting.google.com...
> > > Stop the good discussions and see what you get.... Puppets. Fricken
> > > puppets. Oh, Let's not have intelligent conversation. Let's all run
> > > and hide, and stick to mommy talk.... Wah, wah, wah..... Table talk is
> > > evil, I have to think and stuff... I have paint questions (no, really,
> > > I do. I just have to become more coherent to ask them.), beer points,
> > > and contemporary history making comments to razor off my chest. FOR
> > > THE GREAT CREATORS-SAKE, SAY SOMETHING NASTY (board-wise) SOMEONE....
> > > or I will........
> >
> > Something nasty.
> >
> > <ducks for cover>
> >
> > --Ty
>
> Oh, O.K....George Bush not only doesn't read books, but apparently
> doesn't read much of anything else, Iraq "Democratization", U.S. war
> deaths in the 700s and headed up, $2.00 plus gas, Iraq prison scandal,
> electronic voting machine failures, censorship by Sinclair
> Broadcasting, another $25 Billion for three months of the
> occupation-(total so far pushing 200 Billion-$600 billion at some
> point is looking very likely), outsourcing jobs,only one Enron
> conviction-a woman, of course, just like poor little Martha, general
> revolt in the scientific community to the misuse of data by the
> administration, most of the world rejecting the US policies and
> leadership, nearly 50% drop in the US dollar versus the Euro in four
> years, non-existant Global Warming making the West a tinder box, under
> funded education programs, increasing numbers of people without health
> coverage, deficits continue to grow...
>
> No lack of "Something Nasty". Our present inept leadership seems
> quite capable of creating lots of nasties.

Let's try this for a debate leader. When there is a heated discussion
raging about Napoleon, I always wind up saying, "compared to who?". If
given enough time for retrospection, it's amazing how even and
thoughtful things get. Then last call....

> Over to you, Ty.

Where's he been?

> BJ
>
> PS Is the Blue in the French 1814 uniform the same shade as in 1803?

The white uniforms ruined everthing....

> Are Old Glory's price increases related to tin prices, general
> inflationary pressures, OG's dominance of the market, or does Russ
> need a new Mercedes? All of the above?

You know, years ago, (if it's the same people), Russ's wife fished me
out of a Historicon (95', 96'?) dealers area crowd and gave me $120.00
of free ACW lead after pruchasing $800.00 worth the day before. I hope
Russ got a new Mercedes. Be nice to ride in it...

> Why has no one used the new miniature sound circuit boards to allow
> sound effects for wargames?

Belches and farts weren't enough?

Mark
Anonymous
May 9, 2004 4:28:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

samvanga@aol.com (SamVanga) wrote in message news:<20040507105531.07718.00000348@mb-m24.aol.com>...
> >Don't give in to hate, Sam. Do not let Vader, er, Jones, bait you into
> >another senseless and unending off topic flamewar. That leads to the Dark
> >Side.
>
> Oh I'm not. Its more of the grey side of the Force. I'm really extremely sad
> about the coming election (and its choice of two utterly worthless punks, if
> incresing news reports and open letters, etc. are to be believed).

History will judge. Bush or Kerry? Even if Bush didn't pay his bar tab
I couldn't see picking Kerry. He's not human (Kerry that is).

> OTOH, Jones could not go totally unanswered less he try to claim victory by
> default.
>
> I'm going back to Rise of Nations now. Not as much as fun a human opponent,
> but far less "difficult" (in the human sense, not complexity).
>
> Anyone think the movie "Troy" will lead to any new members/products/interest in
> wargaming? I didn't even realize it was a regular movie until I saw the Time
> Mag. article (thought it was for cable before). At least they got the shape of
> the shields right, that is nice.

Almost. According to those old WRG books I've got, they are rather
more clothed than they should be and the sheilds should be alot bigger
and cow colored. The hero style combat may be good though. May
actually go see it since it looks like the closest thing yet to
historical. Maybe Jennifer will be there.....

Mark
Anonymous
May 9, 2004 4:31:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message news:<109n6og942d9i49@corp.supernews.com>...
> "Bob Jones" <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
> news:<109kbs56p27rk7c@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > Something nasty.
> > >
> > > <ducks for cover>
>
> > Oh, O.K....George Bush not only doesn't read books, blah blah blah blah...
>
> > Over to you, Ty.
>
> Dear Mr. Jones,
>
> After long and extensive consideration lasting almost 1.3 seconds, I am very
> sorry to inform you that I must deny with prejudice your request to
> re-engage in an off-topic discussion.
>
> I realize that this comes as unwelcome news to you and that it constitutes a
> tragic blow. However, I remind you that it's always darkest before the dawn,
> that every cloud has a silver lining, etc. I therefore urge you to try to
> carry on as best you can and are hopeful that you will find some degree of
> success in your other endeavors.
>
> I remain, your most humble and obedient servant,
>
> Ty

Ty,

You know you're itching.... Been a while.

Mark
Anonymous
May 9, 2004 4:33:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

John Secker <john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<maLJllCQmAnAFwHP@secker.demon.co.uk>...
> In message <109n754r1rrm53e@corp.supernews.com>, Ty
> <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> writes
> >"SamVanga" <samvanga@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20040507035438.29140.00000986@mb-m13.aol.com...
> >> >No lack of "Something Nasty". Our present inept leadership seems
> >> >quite capable of creating lots of nasties.
> >> >
> >>
> >> And eight years of Clinton proved it even earlier. So what?
> >>
> >> Sad thing, it looks like yet another choice of the evils of the two
> lessers
> >> AGAIN this round.
> >
> ><Begin Obi-Wan Kenobi Voice>
> >
> >Don't give in to hate, Sam. Do not let Vader, er, Jones, bait you into
> >another senseless and unending off topic flamewar. That leads to the Dark
> >Side.
> >
> ><End Obi-Wan Kenobi Voice>
> >
> Give in to your Dark Side, Ty, you know you want to. You'll feel better
> if you do, you know. Just a little bit - nobody will blame you, and you
> will be able to sleep again without the Voices coming in the dead of
> night.

Vioces. Have you guys been conferencing late at night? That's not right.....

Mark
Anonymous
May 9, 2004 1:08:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

>According to those old WRG books I've got, they are rather
>more clothed than they should be

Yeah, there may be some of that for the rank and file types anyway. As for the
heroes, Homer did talk about a fair amount of armor.

>sheilds should be alot bigger
>and cow colored.

I must say the previews make them look pretty big. Although, I agree with you,
more leather, les metal.

>May
>actually go see it since it looks like the closest thing yet to
>historical.

I sincerely hope they do justice to the story. I am especially interested in
how they do Hector. He and Odysseus <sp?> were always my favorites.
May 9, 2004 1:53:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"M. J. Parks" <parx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
news:<109n6og942d9i49@corp.supernews.com>...

> > Dear Mr. Jones,
> >
> > After long and extensive consideration lasting almost 1.3 seconds, I am
very
> > sorry to inform you that I must deny with prejudice your request to
> > re-engage in an off-topic discussion.
> >
> > I realize that this comes as unwelcome news to you and that it
constitutes a
> > tragic blow. However, I remind you that it's always darkest before the
dawn,
> > that every cloud has a silver lining, etc. I therefore urge you to try
to
> > carry on as best you can and are hopeful that you will find some degree
of
> > success in your other endeavors.
> >
> > I remain, your most humble and obedient servant,
> >
> > Ty
>
> Ty,
>
> You know you're itching.... Been a while.

Dear Mr. Parks,

You overestimate me. Besides, I get paid to argue (I'm a lawyer). If done in
small quantities, arguing in my spare time can be useful as practice. But if
done in large quantities, it can exhaust my arguing energy for paying
clients. It's bad enough to waste time on pointless and unrewarding
flamewars. It's worse when it costs you money.

Now while I believe that arguing about an issue can be beneficial because it
can help clarify my thinking and illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of
each side, I find that there are severe limitations. In a usenet forum,
cowardly opponents can simply ignore your counterpoints, refuse to answer
legitimate questions, attempt to shift the debate to irrelevant issues, etc.
Other folks can jump into the middle of a debate and distract the issues.
The lack of nonverbal cues -- and sloppy typing -- can unintentionally
offend the other side or simply obfuscate the piont you're trying to make.
The sloppy way that folks (including me) throw around defined terms --
without defining them in the current discussion -- add to the confusion.
(Consider a simple example -- a debate on whether a certain military action
was "moral". How can we discuss that meaningfully without agreeing on what
the definition of "morality" is?) There's also the problem that a great many
political debates (which seem to predominate our OT flamewars) turn on
factual matters which are in dispute. This forum is simply not capable of
resolving the factual issues.

So, such discussions quickly become bogged down in an intellectual version
of the Western Front in WWI.

And even if you have a reasonable disputant on the other side of the issue,
the fact remains that these kind of off-topic flamewars pretty quickly
exhaust their benefit stream. Most folks are simply not willing to change
their cherished beliefs no matter how much contra evidence is produced. This
is a fact that I am only recently becoming aware of -- my gaming buddies
have poked fun at me for decades because of my absurd and naive belief that
anyone will see the light if things are simply explained clearly enough to
them.

So if the best you can do is offer me an off-topic discussion on Iraq, the
presidential campaign, etc., then I must respectfully decline the
invitation. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. I simply can't see any
likely benefit that will offset the effort involved.

But if you can come up with a new and interesting topic for an OT flamewar,
I'll be happy to reconsider my decision.

Your humble and obsequious servant,

Ty
Anonymous
May 9, 2004 2:24:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

>You have completely missed the true nature and purpose of the
>article.

You suggest I reread the article and that I missed the point of it. Ok, I
reread it.

The overall nature of the article was to summarize the author's trip to a
Canadian event "Breakthrough 2003" if I got the title right. Ok, fair enough,
it is always interesting to see how things are done elsewhere.

However, the author takes time to make negative comments in both the beginning
and end of the article about our Customs personnel.

Excellent as far as timing in the course of his trip. Utterly irrelevant to
the "true nature and purpose of his article," given the rest of the text.

Please note, I make exactly zero comment about those elements which focused on
the event. I limited my umbrage to his hostility toward our nation's
protectors.

They are not perfect, nor do I claim them to be. However, his comments added
no value to the actual subject of his article, a Canadian wargaming event.

>You don't know Mr Brooking and yet you launch this
>unwarranted attack.

No I don't know him. However, he chose to publish his views in a forum
available to the public. In it, he chose to launch an unwarranted attack (in
my view) on people who happen to be friends of mine.

>You've taken his words and phrases completely out
>of context

Out context insofar as I did not quote the entire article. However, you could
very easily remove the sections I quoted with zero effect on the rest of the
article (or the elements I quote), certainly at least, in substance.

>misattributed all sorts of nefarious motives and
>meanings to his words, phrases, and the article.

I quoted his words exactly (unless I made a typo somewhere). Without quoting
the entire article I will agree with you that they are not the main point of
the article.

Thus, they could easily be removed without detriment to the rest of the
material. However, they remained in the article, and therefore are subject to
comment (even comment that you dislike).

>There are more civilized methods
>for taking exception to the writings of another.

I quoted the elements I found offensive. I commented on them, and explained
how, and why I felt as I did within that limit. For someone who claims the
right of the author to express himself freely, I find it interesting that you
would deny me the same.

>*NJH: As opposed to your "irrelevant yet snotty and ignorant
>commentary" about a person you don't know.

My commentary is limited solely to the contents of the article. Other than a
snide comment about his listening to Al Franken, I did not comment about
anything else about the author. I did however, have the discourtesy to allow
his words to speak for themselves.

>I have my own extensive
>collection of good, bad, and ugly stories of border crossings.

As do I from both our southern and northern borders. Moreover, I also have
friends in the service so have additional observations from the other side of
the process as well.

>Contrary to what you may think the people watching our borders are
>human, therefore they are not perfect.

I never claimed otherwise.

However, I have no problem with them being of whatever ancestral background
they happen to be. The length of their hair does not affect me. Nor do I have
a problem with them stepping outside a booth to do their jobs. Nor does the
fact that they are armed bother me (see earlier reference to Kenneth G. Ward
Border Station).

>For the most part they do a
>first rate job, but they do have their fifth rate moments.

I fully agree. And, had the author related a specific experience, fair enough.
However, he did not.

He made comments about their heritage, their grooming, their demeanor, and
their equipment. None of which even remotely applied to the subject of his
trip, a gaming event in Canada. Moreover, none of the factors that got his
attention had any bearing (related by him) to his actual crossings.

>*NJH: It's his money and his time, if he wishes to waste it listening
>to Franken that's his right as an American.

Just so. And, this is the one place wherein I feel I made snotty comment of my
own.

>If he had been listening
>to Rush, would you have made some petty remark about listening to drug
>addicts?

Probably.

>The colloquial phrase is "Border Guard" and there is
>nothing demaning or disrespectful in the use of such phrase.

I never called demeaning or disrespectful. I called it ignorant. There is a
difference.

I refer to the dictionary:

"Main Entry: ig·no·rant
Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking
knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern
mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence
<ignorant errors>
2 : UNAWARE, UNINFORMED "

>*NJH: Have you considered the possibility he might have a very good
>reason for being concerned, even fearful of firearms?

Of course he might. However, he did not express any such concern or fear.

Instead he referred to the prominent display of the weapons. To me that is a
comment about the person wearing the gun since the gun does not display itself.

>but the fact is that you didn't bother
>to ask.

Any more, apparently, than did he before making his comments.

>*NJH: Freedom of Speech is cherished in NHMGS and my own position on
>censorship is well documented.

And yet, you blast me when I exercise mine. Is it at all possible that you
only cherish this freedom when it is in agreement with your own perspectives?

Please note, I condemn the views themselves.

I do condemn the editor for not editing the comments out as they add no value
to the article's main subject. But mostly, no word of thanks to the people who
protect our borders, just a general disclaimer in front about the views being
solely those of the authors.

Ironically, with this one exception, I found the rest of the material quite
good. The other articles stayed on topic. Were well written and entertaining.
Even the actual jist of Mr. Brooking's article was fine.

>If you think you can do a better
>job as Editor of the Citadel, join NHMGS and volunteer to be the
>Citadel Editor.

Thank you no. As the leading officer of the group you have quite disabused me
of whatever thought I may have had left in this regard. This despite the very
decent and honorable efforts made by another member of your group at large
(that gentleman is a true credit to the hobby and his fellow members and is the
type of gamer I miss meeting).

>*NJH: This is baloney, you haven't allowed the NHMGS Officer's a
>chance to evaluate your concerns and respond to them.

Let's see, I noted I also mailed the group officers with my opinion. You
called this baloney. And, yet I have mail to your address as well as three
others. In what way did I not do as I claimed?

>If you were
>genuinely interested in a response you would have waited for one, but
>you didn't.

Let's see, your author publicly expresses his opinion (without review/response)
and it is a First Amendment freedom at stake. I publicly publish my opinion
(without review/response) and I have no genuine interest in a reply, etc.,
etc., etc.

Well sir, I take this to be the response. Fair enough. I jumped to a
conclusion, which you have indeed borne out, so I saved some time.

>Now we'll never know how they may have
>responded to your missive because you have robbed them of an
>opportunity to do so.

Not a bit of it. If they are still concerned in the next edition, they have
the ability to respond. Granted, I made my concerns generally known, but I
have always been in favor of transparency where it is possible.


>No, you didn't do anything rational, prudent, or reasonable.

Let's see, I quoted the elements of an article that bothered me. I commented
on the same and noted why I hold my views. I can tell it bothers you I did so
in a public forum outside the pages of the newsletter itself. Ok.

However, there is exactly nothing irrational, imprudent, or unreasonable about
my method. The best you could argue is inefficient as it does not limit itself
to the pages of your publication. I would argue in turn that it reaches a
larger forum and that not a bad thing.

>electronically lynch a man you do not know for the most specious of
>reasons.

First, I did not "electronically lynch" anyone. I condemned certain lines of
text, which I believe I correctly assessed to be snotty, arrogant, and ignorant
within the context they appeared. Outside of these lines, and one snotty (of
my own) comment about his listening habits, I have no opinion of the author as
I do not know him beyond his writing.

>What you have done is entirely antithetical to the manner in
>which the overwhelming majority of the gamers in the Northwest conduct
>themselves in our hobby.

Really? The man's words speak for themselves. As does their defense, and its
tone, by you.

>You can't possibly imagine how badly you
>misunderstand Mr Brooking's article, the Editor, NHMGS leadership, the
>NHMGS membership, and the gamers of the Pacific Northwest.

I sincerely hope you are correct. As I noted in my original opinion, I spoke
in defense of the Customs officers I perceived to be denigrated by the article
due to my friendship with many of them.

I feel that I limited my opinions to those lines which were applicable and no
others (with one self indulgent swipe at the Franken tapes). And, I still
feel, even more so after this reply to you, that I was correct. That you
disagree is fine with me.

However, I still note that your only nod to my concern is a passing reference
to Customs and Border Protection officers being merely human and having both
good and bad days. I guess that is better than second guessing their ancestry
and gender, thier chosen hair styles, their professional conduct and the
equipment issued to them for their protection and that of others.

>IMHO - You
>have definitely missed the boat on this one.

And, IMHO I did not, even less so now.
Anonymous
May 9, 2004 2:35:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

>You're using a broad brush to paint all the people in the group.

I concede that this appears to be so. That much is my fault. I should have
added text to emphasize my focus on the author, and some extent the editor. I
think my response elsewhere goes into greater detail in this regard.

However, the type of mentality expressed by the author and the groups'
President in his reply to me, are the kind of thing to which I was referring.
It is their attitudes that I do not miss and am glad to avoid.

At least one of ther gentleman of the larger group replied privately to me.
His reply was gentlemanly, actually addressed my concerns and was a credit to
the community at large. I do indeed hope that he, not these others, is a
representative of the whole.

>Perhaps if you tried it you could get back into the hobby although I
>can only speculate on what drove you away.

What drove me away was self-rightous self-absorbed idiots. Some of them were
the traditional rules lawyers who could quote the text of an entire volume
(understand it or not). But too many others were people who just knew what was
best for everyone else generally.

When I made my first post I had just read the offending article. I felt that
my friends were under attack without cause. Maybe I used words that some, like
you, found difficult or whatever. I can only say, the people who protect our
borders deserve better (friends of mine or not).
Anonymous
May 9, 2004 2:37:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

>I'm tempted to make a derogatory comment against you, but I don't make
>circumstantial ad Hominem attacks against people (such as you do)
>based on such limited information.

If you mean I used a broad brush to paint many people, I apologize. That was
not my intent, but I was angry on behalf of my friends and was not as exact in
my wording as I might have been.

However, if you are referring to my views of the text, and its author, I
quoted, I stand by that.
Anonymous
May 9, 2004 2:37:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

samvanga@aol.com (SamVanga) wrote in message news:<20040509063734.08318.00000760@mb-m11.aol.com>...
> >I'm tempted to make a derogatory comment against you, but I don't make
> >circumstantial ad Hominem attacks against people (such as you do)
> >based on such limited information.
>
> If you mean I used a broad brush to paint many people, I apologize. That was
> not my intent, but I was angry on behalf of my friends and was not as exact in
> my wording as I might have been.
>
> However, if you are referring to my views of the text, and its author, I
> quoted, I stand by that.

Mr. Vanga
I think it is interesting that one can hold sweeping and definitive
views of someone you have never met. It is the true failing of the
internet, that one can post such scurrilous, unfounded accusations for
the entire world to see, while having no knowledge of the subjects.
I'm sorry we aren't replying to you off the usenet, as you prefer, but
that is something that occurs between gentlemen.

Where to begin . . .

First, Arthur Brooking is anything but the person you suggest. I have
known Arthur for many years. He is smart, responsible, kind and
forthright. There is nothing smug or snotty about him. His border
crossing comments were strictly tongue-in cheek. If you don't
understand his effort at humor, that seems to be your problem. If you
don't like Arthur's politics, get over it. Arthur is my friend and
somebody I always enjoy seeing; I am sorry you won't get to know him.

Second, lets deal in some facts here. The border crossing is an
issue. I have gone to game conventions in Canada six times since 9/11
and the attitudes of U.S. officials are more intrusive and their
attitudes often seem self-important. For years we have held
conventions attended by hobbyists on both sides of the border. We've
supported one another's conventions because it is important to the
hobby, and frankly, we have lots of friends in Canada we only see at
convention time. Canadians have regularly attended our annual
gathering, and supported it with their presence and their games.
Before 9/11 we could count on 8-12 games from Canadian game hosts.
Due to the intrusive border inspections, the hassles involved in
getting game materials into the states, we will have 2 Canadian games
this year. We all realize that the border folk have an important job
to do, but don't suggest for a minute that it doesn't impact us. And
don't impugn our characters when we bitch about it because it is
bitching between friends . . . which you have decided not to be.

Finally, if our newsletter is what keeps you out of the hobby . . .
then my guess is you never really wanted in. Miniature wargaming is
about three simple things--love of history, an interest in modeling,
and sustaining friendships in the hobby. It isn't about politics, and
it isn't about characterizing individuals or organizations one is
completely ignorant about. Historical miniature gaming is not a large
hobby, and NHMGS is not a large organization. You would have found us
welcoming and supportive if you had simply taken the time to get to
know us. You might have enjoyed talking history, or new miniatures,
rules sets, sharing a Krispy Kreme with Arthur, bitching about the
club officers or complaining about the Mariners. Or even played a
great game with Paul Hannah, or Bruce Meyer.

Of course, you're going to miss out on that now that you are
radioactive.

Kevin Smyth
Anonymous
May 9, 2004 9:49:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

>I'm sorry we aren't replying to you off the usenet, as you prefer, but
>that is something that occurs between gentlemen.

I don't have any particular preference. This should be obvious given the means
by which I made my views known in the first place. However, I noted that the
only polite response was made privately.

Yours is like the other replies in this forum. It is to harshly attack me.
Fine, friends should stand together. Note why I made my own comments in the
first place.

You suggest the tone was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Fair enough, that is
possible.

I am of course then confused as to why he would not include even one sentence
in thanks for the hard work of the officers, as is customary in a written
format, since body language and verbal tone is lacking in writing.
Nonetheless, despite no indication of his tongue-in-cheek intent, you are
correct, that may have been all he meant.

Did I feel, from his own words that such was his intent, I would have had a
chuckle and looked for the nearest meeting. However, given his word choice,
and given the ongoing defense which makes nearly zero effort to address my
concerns, I feel that my first impression was correct.


>If you
>don't like Arthur's politics, get over it.

Just as with most of the other responses, you choose to miss my main point and
focus on the one place wherein I indulged myself. Again, I have a problem with
his portrayal of my friends. The fact that he listens to Al Franken is not my
main point, nor do I dwell on it, unlike the article's defenders.

>The border crossing is an
>issue.

Yes, it is. Since I lost family in the New York attack I still find it
frightenly easy for everyone to cross. I always find it comforting that some
men and women are willing to try to do that thankless task.

And, I believe that they deserve some appreciation rather having their heritage
derided, their hair made fun of, themselves portrayed as swaggers, and the
implication that they are amateurs about guns by "prominently displaying" them.

> attitudes of U.S. officials are more intrusive

Has it occurred to you that perhaps they take their jobs seriously? That maybe
they are actively looking for any number of violations ranging from the obvious
guy with a gun to the not so obvious one with money? That there are more
criminals entering the U.S. than leaving?

Again, my perception of the tone of your comments is that you simply are
annoyed. Well, unless you happen to know the officer personally, he has to
assume that you (and I and everyone else) are some kind of threat until
satisfied otherwise.


>We all realize that the border folk have an important job
>to do

And here again, is as close as you get actually addressing my concern. As with
djcoaltrain, it is far from appreciation for a hard job, mostly well done.
But, it is better than comments about their ethnicity, their hair, their job
equipment, etc.

> And
>don't impugn our characters when we bitch about it because it is
>bitching between friends

Just allow you and your friends to impugn the characters of my friends based on
their jobs? No. I will not be any less supportive of my friends than you are
of yours.

>which you have decided not to be.

That is correct, as I clearly stated, along with the reason why. I reiterate
all of that in this reply to you as well.

Again, I find it interesting that all of the replies (except one in private)
have the same tone. Righteous indignation, self-superiority, and general
hostility to disagreement. Fair enough, I expressed some of the same
sentiments myself, in defense of my friends.

However, I note yet again, how damning the faint praise you offer to our
service people actually is. And, since that is my main concern, how much you
choose to ignore or miss it.

>Finally, if our newsletter is what keeps you out of the hobby . . .
>then my guess is you never really wanted in.

Nope. The newsletter nearly had me back into the hobby. For the most part it
brought back fond memories of fun times. The Pig Wars battle report was
especially entertaining and I rather liked the cartoons.

However, the attitude I perceived in the article I noted, and moreover, the
defense of it here, is what keeps me out.

Again I note, most of the replies have focused on the one snide comment I made
about listening to Franken tapes rather than address my concerns (still valid
after I again reread the article with the 'tongue-in-cheek idea in mind). The
one private reply is still the only one which actually addressed my point.


>Miniature wargaming is
>about three simple things--love of history, an interest in modeling,
>and sustaining friendships in the hobby.

That is largely correct. And, it is the sustaining the friendships element
that I choose to exercise now that I have a broader exposure to the mentality
of the local community.

The inability, or unwillingness, to do more than offer a few vaguely nice
comments (carefully surrounded by equally vaguely negative comments) about the
work of my friends is not new. If only half the stories they tell are true, I
don't know why any of them keep their jobs, until I recognize the love and
belief that most of them genuinely hold for it, despite the harassments.

Based on the comments in this forum, it seems that the author has many who
agree with his views. Fair enough, that is their right and I am all for it. I
will choose not to expose myself to those views, and the attendant blinders
which seem to accompany them.

>You might have enjoyed talking history, or new miniatures,

That is indeed what I miss most. And, perhaps when I need to move again,
perhaps I will reconsider.

>Of course, you're going to miss out on that now that you are
>radioactive.

If I am "radioactive" with people who miss or ignore a valid concern, based on
the actual text in question, I can live with this condition. My friends in
uniform may not share this hobby, but we do share others. I continue to regret
the sentiments I see echoed here, and the other replies here, and the lack of
support for my friends in a job which benefits all of us.
May 9, 2004 11:37:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

samvanga@aol.com (SamVanga) wrote in message news:<20040509062438.08318.00000758@mb-m11.aol.com>...
> >You have completely missed the true nature and purpose of the
> >article.
>
> You suggest I reread the article and that I missed the point of it. Ok, I
> reread it.
>
> The overall nature of the article was to summarize the author's trip to a
> Canadian event "Breakthrough 2003" if I got the title right. Ok, fair enough,
> it is always interesting to see how things are done elsewhere.
>
> However, the author takes time to make negative comments in both the beginning
> and end of the article about our Customs personnel.
*NJH: As I explained in my previous note, they were entirely
tongue-in-cheek. They are not disrespective nor denigrating when
viewed in context. I read for several hours everyday, many times I
read little asides such as Mr Brooking's in humorous articles about
traveling. They are an acceptable literary device, you deliberately
took offense where none was intended, several people have told you so
and yet you continue to be offended. I'm saying once again, your
outrage is seriously misplaced.

> I limited my umbrage to his hostility toward our nation's protectors.
*NJH: He has no hostility toward them. Why are you so determined to
ignore this simple fact?

> >You don't know Mr Brooking and yet you launch this
> >unwarranted attack.
> No I don't know him. However, he chose to publish his views in a forum
> available to the public. In it, he chose to launch an unwarranted attack (in
> my view) on people who happen to be friends of mine.
*NJH: Then you should have given him the courtesy of a reply in the
"public forum" he originally used.

> >You've taken his words and phrases completely out
> >of context
> Out context insofar as I did not quote the entire article. However, you could
> very easily remove the sections I quoted with zero effect on the rest of the
> article (or the elements I quote), certainly at least, in substance.
*NJH: If you remove those quotes form their context, you lose their
tongue in cheek nature. That's why it's always dangerous to remove
anything from context, unless it's an obvious sound byte and meant to
be used alone.

> >misattributed all sorts of nefarious motives and
> >meanings to his words, phrases, and the article.
> I quoted his words exactly (unless I made a typo somewhere). Without quoting
> the entire article I will agree with you that they are not the main point of
> the article.
> Thus, they could easily be removed without detriment to the rest of the
> material. However, they remained in the article, and therefore are subject to
> comment (even comment that you dislike).
*NJH: Comment is one thing, but what you launched an all out attack on
Mr Brooking (dang, you called the guy a puke), and all else associated
with the newsletter, that was decidedly unfair.

> >There are more civilized methods
> >for taking exception to the writings of another.
> I quoted the elements I found offensive. I commented on them, and explained
> how, and why I felt as I did within that limit. For someone who claims the
> right of the author to express himself freely, I find it interesting that you
> would deny me the same.
*NJH: It would have been more civilized to take exception in the
original publication. Did you not think you would have an opportunity
to respond in The Citadel? If that is what you thought, then you have
prejudged without a basis in fact. Exactly the kind of treatment you
lament for your friends.

> >*NJH: As opposed to your "irrelevant yet snotty and ignorant
> >commentary" about a person you don't know.
> My commentary is limited solely to the contents of the article. Other than a
> snide comment about his listening to Al Franken, I did not comment about
> anything else about the author. I did however, have the discourtesy to allow
> his words to speak for themselves.
*NJH: IMHO - You have unfairly accused him of denigrating and
disrespecting a group of public servants. Again, I say that was not
the case.

> He made comments about their heritage, their grooming, their demeanor, and
> their equipment. None of which even remotely applied to the subject of his
> trip, a gaming event in Canada. Moreover, none of the factors that got his
> attention had any bearing (related by him) to his actual crossings.
*NJH: This is hyperbole and rhetorical polemics. You're trying very
hard to elevate his relatively innocuous comments to some monumentally
egregious moral transgression to validate your concerns, comments, and
actions.

> >*NJH: Have you considered the possibility he might have a very good
> >reason for being concerned, even fearful of firearms?
> Of course he might. However, he did not express any such concern or fear.
*NJH: Not in the article, but why didn't you contact him directly and
ask him?

> Instead he referred to the prominent display of the weapons. To me that is a
> comment about the person wearing the gun since the gun does not display
> itself.
*NJH: This is a non sequitur, I see no such connection and I'm a
seriously firm defender of the Second Amendment (I like former
President Heston).

> >*NJH: Freedom of Speech is cherished in NHMGS and my own position on
> >censorship is well documented.
> And yet, you blast me when I exercise mine. Is it at all possible that you
> only cherish this freedom when it is in agreement with your own perspectives?
*NJH: I haven't censored any of your writings or indicated you should
be silenced. I have taken issue with what you wrote and where you
wrote it and the timing of your writings, and IMHO - your misguided
outrage. When people post or publish incorrect information about
NHMGS, or it's my job to say it's incorrect. When people fail to give
NHMGS a chance to process complaints, it's my job to say you didn't
give us a chance.

> Please note, I condemn the views themselves.
*NJH: Please note I only condemn the incorrect assessment, the choice
of venue for venting, and the fact you did not give the NHMGS
officials time to address your concerns before you went "public."

> I do condemn the editor for not editing the comments out as they add no value
> to the article's main subject. But mostly, no word of thanks to the people
> who protect our borders, just a general disclaimer in front about the views
> being solely those of the authors.
*NJH: All articles printed are the views of the author. It's a
newsletter for a private organization and as such we do not have an
elaborate masthead. It's not the MWAN, the Courier, or the Times. The
Citadel is a newsletter for a private organization, cut us some slack
here, it's a newsletter for gosh sakes.

> >If you think you can do a better
> >job as Editor of the Citadel, join NHMGS and volunteer to be the
> >Citadel Editor.
> Thank you no. As the leading officer of the group you have quite disabused me
> of whatever thought I may have had left in this regard.
*NJH: Right. As the leading officer it's part of my duty to defend the
organization and it's members from specious allegations and baseless
assertions. If you were part of the organization I would defend you
just as vehemently. I ride for the brand.

> This despite the very
> decent and honorable efforts made by another member of your group at large
> (that gentleman is a true credit to the hobby and his fellow members and is
> the type of gamer I miss meeting).
*NJH: You attacked our organization, NHMGS officers, our newsletter,
our editor, and a decent member of our organization in a public forum.
You left me with no alternative, but to respond in kind in a public
forum. I did, and I truly apologize to the RGMH community for
violating the ceasefire.

> >*NJH: This is baloney, you haven't allowed the NHMGS Officer's a
> >chance to evaluate your concerns and respond to them.
> Let's see, I noted I also mailed the group officers with my opinion. You
> called this baloney. And, yet I have mail to your address as well as three
> others. In what way did I not do as I claimed?
*NJH: You sent the emails to the officers after you posted here. You
gave us absolutely no time to respond to your concerns. For you to
hint in any way that you gave us time or opportunity to respond to
your concerns is false. The time/date stamp for your initial post here
on RGMH is "Date: 2004-05-08 07:57:46 PST." The time/date for the
email to the Officers of NHMGS is "Date: 5/8/04 8:09:29 AM Pacific
Daylight Time." You placed your post here on RGMH, then, about twelve
minutes later, you sent the email to the NHMGS officers. There was no
time for the officer's to do anything before you went public. Explain
to everyone here, how you could rationally and reasonably expect the
officer's of NHMGS to respond to your concerns (emails) before you
posted here, especially when you had already posted on RGMH before you
sent the emails to the officers???
Basically the timeline is as follows:
1. Post on RGMH with an indication that you did not expect the
officer's to do anything.
2. Send emails to officers
3. Claim you gave the officer's ample opportunity.
That dog won't hunt.

> >If you were genuinely interested in a response you would have waited for
> > one, but you didn't.
> Let's see, your author publicly expresses his opinion (without
> review/response) and it is a First Amendment freedom at stake. I publicly
> publish my opinion (without review/response) and I have no genuine interest
> in a reply, etc., etc., etc.
*NJH: You could have published a response in the Citadel, you didn't.
I'll give you another chance to put your concerns before the gamers of
NHMGS, here is the yahoo.group for the NHMGS organization:

"http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/NHMGS/"

Join the group, any gamer can, and publish your original post from
this thread. The real test of an idea is in an open market place of
ideas. There are over a hundred members of that group, see if any of
them agree with your assessment of the situation. Give your concerns a
chance to be validated, let's see if they have legs. If there is
traction for your observations, I'm sure you'll get sympathetic
responses.

> Well sir, I take this to be the response. Fair enough. I jumped to a
> conclusion, which you have indeed borne out, so I saved some time.
*NJH: Yes indeed, you did jump to a conclusion, IMHO - an erroneous
conclusion. I'm saying, perhaps indelicately, and without the niceties
of tact, that you're incorrect. You don't like the way I have
responded, well welcome to the club, I didn't like the manner in which
you made your concerns public before they could be handled privately.
Therefore, you got a rather heated reply.

> >Now we'll never know how they may have responded to your missive because you
> have robbed them of an opportunity to do so.
> Not a bit of it. If they are still concerned in the next edition, they have
> the ability to respond. Granted, I made my concerns generally known, but I
> have always been in favor of transparency where it is possible.
*NJH: There is a difference between transparency and truculence. You
could just as easily have had your concerns published in the next
issue of the Citadel (you still could). You didn't wait for the system
to process your complaint. The system can't work if it isn't given a
chance to function. You should have given us a chance before venting
here.

> >No, you didn't do anything rational, prudent, or reasonable.
>
> Let's see, I quoted the elements of an article that bothered me. I commented
> on the same and noted why I hold my views. I can tell it bothers you I did so
> in a public forum outside the pages of the newsletter itself. Ok.
>
> However, there is exactly nothing irrational, imprudent, or unreasonable about
> my method. The best you could argue is inefficient as it does not limit
> itself to the pages of your publication. I would argue in turn that it
> reaches a larger forum and that not a bad thing.
*NJH: You have deliberately intimated in a most vehement manner and
high profile public forum that several people and aspects of the
gaming community of the Pacific Northwest are scurrilous in word and
deed. You do so before they had a chance to evaluate your concerns and
respond directly to you about your concerns. That's not rational,
prudent, or reasonable.

> >electronically lynch a man you do not know for the most specious of
> >reasons.
> First, I did not "electronically lynch" anyone. I condemned certain lines of
> text, which I believe I correctly assessed to be snotty, arrogant, and
> ignorant within the context they appeared. Outside of these lines, and one
> snotty (of my own) comment about his listening habits, I have no opinion of
> the author as I do not know him beyond his writing.
*NJH: Several people who know Mr Brooking and are acquainted with the
article have now told you that you have misconstrued and misunderstood
the article and the quotes you have pulled from context. I would hope
you listen to them.

> >What you have done is entirely antithetical to the manner in
> >which the overwhelming majority of the gamers in the Northwest conduct
> >themselves in our hobby.
> Really? The man's words speak for themselves. As does their defense, and its
> tone, by you.
*NJH: The article speaks for itself, but you fail to appreciate the
full message or the intent of that message. Consider this: You have
seen my posts here. Have you ever seen me repsond with such forceful
language before? Not to Bob, John, Tim, Ty, or you, not even when we
engaged in highly charged discussions. I am responding here with an
uncharacteristic forcefulness, because I know Mr Brooking and all the
other people, they are exactly the kind of people we all hope to game
with, and exactly the kind of people with whom we all hope to enjoy
the hobby. So far, everyone is telling you the sky is blue, consider
the possiblity they may be correct.

(BTW - Apologies to Ty for not giving him top billing, but I listed
the names alphabetically.) ;-)

> >You can't possibly imagine how badly you
> >misunderstand Mr Brooking's article, the Editor, NHMGS leadership, the
> >NHMGS membership, and the gamers of the Pacific Northwest.
> I sincerely hope you are correct. As I noted in my original opinion, I spoke
> in defense of the Customs officers I perceived to be denigrated by the article
> due to my friendship with many of them.
*NJH: I say again, no such intent existed.

> I feel that I limited my opinions to those lines which were applicable and no
> others (with one self indulgent swipe at the Franken tapes).
*NJH: Welllll, personally I can excuse that one as I'm not much of a
fan of talking heads and illeducated pundits, regardless of party
affiliation. I care not for Al anymore than I care for Rush. They both
irritate me and I'd rather spend money on minis than their tapes.

> And, I still feel, even more so after this reply to you, that I was correct.
> That you disagree is fine with me.
*NJH: OK. I can tolerate a personal opinion, but I don't have to agree
with it. I still take exception to your methodology.

> However, I still note that your only nod to my concern is a passing reference
> to Customs and Border Protection officers being merely human and having both
> good and bad days. I guess that is better than second guessing their ancestry
> and gender, thier chosen hair styles, their professional conduct and the
> equipment issued to them for their protection and that of others.
*NJH: I chose not to comment directly on the personal experiences of
Mr Brooking's or you. I have my own experiences to comfort me. I have
several relatives and friends involved with law enforcement, but I
don't get upset when someone uses the phase Cop, instead of "Officer
of the Law" or "Constable." I don't go sideways when people malign
Attorneys, and my wife is an Attorney as are several of our friends. I
still do not see the "second guessing" you see in the article or the
phrases, but that's just me. I'm a sports official and I'm used to all
sorts of abuse and insults, they're part of the game and contextual, I
live it all on the pitch.

> >IMHO - You have definitely missed the boat on this one.
> And, IMHO I did not, even less so now.
*NJH: I would very much like you to consider my first post as having
been written in the heat and passion of the moment. In such rare
instances, when I do not carefully measure my prose and speech, I am
not nearly as tactful or diplomatic as I should like to be. In as much
as you view Mr Brooking's words to be disrespectful of your friends
profession, I also perceived your broad brush denunciations of NHMGS
(and its members) and your methodology to be extremely disrespectful.
Ideally, I wish you had sent the emails to the NHMGS officers and
given us a deadline for a response before venting on RGMH.

Again, my apologies to the RGMH community for my intemperate excesses.
Cheers
NJH
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 12:08:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

>I'm saying once again, your
>outrage is seriously misplaced.

And I am saying once again, after three readings, that I do not perceive them
to be "tongue-in-cheek." Thus, again, I feel that my original impression is
correct.

>*NJH: He has no hostility toward them. Why are you so determined to
>ignore this simple fact?

Because I read the words he used. I also noted the absence of any words to
mitigate/explain those he did use (either by the author or the editor).

>*NJH: Then you should have given him the courtesy of a reply in the
>"public forum" he originally used.

Did I have any certainty of that forum being open to me, perhaps. At best,
that would only be a hope.

>That's why it's always dangerous to remove
>anything from context, unless it's an obvious sound byte and meant to
>be used alone.

That is exactly what those comments appear to be (sound bytes). I do not see
any serious attempt to indicate otherwise.

>*NJH: Comment is one thing, but what you launched an all out attack on
>Mr Brooking (dang, you called the guy a puke),

Let's see, he refers to my friends' ethnicity and gender (inaccurately as it
happens, the Customs Service is one of the most open to women and minorities in
the country). He chooses words like swagger to describe their demeanor. He
derides their "prominently displayed" guns (implying that they are doing that
deliberately since guns are mere objects and can't display themselves in any
manner).

Yeah, I was pissed when I made first comments. I saw friends of mine (if not
literal friends, fellows in law enforcement) slammed for no apparent reason
given the point of the article. Even the one officer on the return who
indicated some awareness of the hobby was given short shrift in the text (some
reference to him not being unmenacing).

Moreover, I saw zero effort by the author, or most of his defenders, to do more
than 'damn with faint praise' those same friends and their work. Yet, you
complain about me being unfair.


>Did you not think you would have an opportunity
>to respond in The Citadel?

Frankly, no. And, given the responses (bar one), I see no reason at all to
think I was wrong.

>If that is what you thought, then you have
>prejudged without a basis in fact. Exactly the kind of treatment you
>lament for your friends.

The author made no prejudgment about my friends. And, I made no prejudgments
about his article.

He made judgments based on his perceptions of them from a moment's encounter
each way at the border. My judgments were made based on his chosen words, and
the lack of any other comment from any other figure within the publication.

My only "prejudgment" was that I made my comments publicly before directing
them specifically to the club officers noted in the newsletter. If there is
any concern that I may have a fair complaint, the author, or publisher,
certainly has as many future editions to comment in as they wish.



>*NJH: IMHO - You have unfairly accused him of denigrating and
>disrespecting a group of public servants. Again, I say that was not
>the case.

IMHO I disagree.

I say his own words describe his sense of denigration and disrespect to a group
of public servants. Have I misquoted his words (not counting typos)? No.

Are his chosen words ones commonly used to express appreciation, respect, or
other positive sentiments? No.

Did he include any kind of ameliorating comment anywhere in or around the
article to let the reader see his "tongue in cheek" intent? No.

Did the rest of his article maintain a tone of whimsy or "tongue in cheekness"
to suggest the entire thing should be read in such a light? No. In fact, the
bulk of it was a factual recital of events and his impressions thereof.

Following your own advice in your first reply, I looked for the point of the
article. I presume the author to be honest in his writing. I presume him to
choose his words deliberately, knowing they would be published. I presume him
to be accurate in the rest of his article, the same as with those elements
which distress me.


>*NJH: This is hyperbole and rhetorical polemics. You're trying very
>hard to elevate his relatively innocuous comments to some monumentally
>egregious moral transgression to validate your concerns, comments, and
>actions.

No.

I take the author seriously. I take his own words seriously. I presume that
he used them with deliberation and understanding of their meaning. I have not
added any words to his. I have not assumed he misused them.

Do you claim that I did misquote him? Again, not counting typos.

>*NJH: Not in the article, but why didn't you contact him directly and
>ask him?

Because I saw his choice of words. They suggested to me an attack on the
officers. This is so because guns to not display themselves. People "display"
them, or more accurately in the case of officers, carry them.

>*NJH: This is a non sequitur,

No, this is my opinion of his word choice. I have noted why.

>I see no such connection and I'm a
>seriously firm defender of the Second Amendment (I like former
>President Heston).

Good for you, glad to hear it even. However, your views are not at issue.
Rather, the words of the article are.

>When people post or publish incorrect information about
>NHMGS, or it's my job to say it's incorrect.

As far as I know, I have not published any incorrect information about the
group. I quoted specific material from a publicly available source and
attributed it appropriately. I then opined about it. I then was attacked by
and several others for the same.

>When people fail to give
>NHMGS a chance to process complaints, it's my job to say you didn't
>give us a chance.

Well, I sent the same commentary to you right after posting it. Admittedly,
the newsgroup is faster than the printer. However, you are not precluded from
addressing my concerns. Indeed, you have been doing so all weekend, merely in
a comparatively transparent setting.

>*NJH: Please note I only condemn the incorrect assessment,

We will just have to disagree about how incorrect my assessment is then. I
read the words themselves. They were presumably chosen deliberately and with
the same care given the rest of the article.

>the choice
>of venue for venting,
>and the fact you did not give the NHMGS
>officials time to address your concerns before you went "public."

Fine. Were I in your seat I might well do the same. However, I would not try
to pretend that I have no ability to respond elsewhere either.

I will only say that I was very angry when I saw those comments. In
retrospect, sending my note to the club officers first might have been more
politic. But, given your replies, I am not at all sure I was so wrong.

> cut us some slack
>here, it's a newsletter for gosh sakes.

Did you read my other replies? The bulk of the newsletter is quite good. Even
the main elements of the article in question are fine.

However, that those comments were in the publication, despite otherwise
excellent work, suggests all the more their intent. I appreciate that author
opinions are just that. However, two (even one) small sentences in the one
single article with such comments, is not an unreasonable burden.

>specious allegations and baseless
>assertions.

Show me wherein I misquoted the text in question (I do think I made one
spelling typo)? Until then, don't pretend I made it up, I did not. That you
choose to interpret the words differently than do I, is also zero evidence of
"specious allegations" or "baseless assertions."

>I ride for the brand.

What was that old toast? Something like: "To the United States be she right or
wrong. Let us pray that she is always right!"

I admire riding for the brand. However, the facts/truth is more important
still.

I expressed my opinion and the effect it has on me not getting back into the
hobby while I am in the Pac. NW. I did not invent words for the author. Nor
did I misapply their meaning (IMHO).

>*NJH: You attacked our organization, NHMGS officers, our newsletter,
>our editor, and a decent member of our organization in a public forum.
>You left me with no alternative, but to respond in kind in a public
>forum.

Wrong again.

You still have another forum, at your disposal as you see fit, or not.

I did not attack the organization, except to note that I do not wish to expose
myself to the company of people like the author. I was angry at the time of
the first post, and missed an opportunity to add a paragraph to delineate more
clearly my differences with him and the whole group, a failure on my part.
However, your own replies, and most of the others show me that the author is
not alone in his views, good to know.

I did attack the publisher of the newsletter for allowing the comments without
at least adding a direct disclaimer. Given how on focus the rest of the
articles were, and even the bulk of the article in question, I see this as
fair. None of the other articles commented on the personal aspects of passing
parties.

>I truly apologize to the RGMH community for
>violating the ceasefire.

The ceasefire, to which I presume you refer, is about politics. Not about
wargaming groups, which is the point of this subthread.

>Explain
>to everyone here, how you could rationally and reasonably expect the
>officer's of NHMGS to respond to your concerns (emails) before you
>posted here, especially when you had already posted on RGMH before you
>sent the emails to the officers???

Since I know of your concerns about quoting things. Let me quote my note to
the club officers. I fully appreciate that my concerns were posted here first,
said so from the start.

"Gentlemen,

The following is a message I posted to the rec.games.miniatures.historical
newsgroup. The message is a reply to an unrelated subject, hence the opening
reference lines. However, my reply is based on article in your Winter 2004
edition of "The Citadel."

I left the hobby years ago but maintained an interest. Since then I discovered
the above newsgroup and seriously considered getting back into the hobby.
However, as noted below, I will not be doing that via your group's offices any
time soon.

I hope that you will consider my comments in future editions."

>3. Claim you gave the officer's ample opportunity.

Has the next edition of the newsletter yet been printed? Is the deadline more
than 24 hours away? Do you still have ample time to reply in whatever manner
you deem fit?

You seem more outraged that I made my concerns known in an open forum than
anything else.


>The real test of an idea is in an open market place of
>ideas.

I quite agree, hence my posting here.

>*NJH: I say again, no such intent existed.

Maybe you are right. I still disagree based on the available text. As you
note, other people have also said I was wrong, that is a possibility.

However, as I noted before, none of you has actually addressed my concern very
directly in these replies, with one major exception. The one exception is the
only one who actually addressed my main point rather than just telling me I'm
wrong, radioactive, etc.


>Ideally, I wish you had sent the emails to the NHMGS officers and
>given us a deadline for a response before venting on RGMH.

In retrospect, so do I. But, like yourself, I was writing in the heat of the
moment.

If you knew some of the stories of my border comrades, you might understand my
anger. I have enough of my own stories, but for them, the people come to them
so they can't get away.

I still think my interpretation of the author's words is accurate. But you are
right, I should have gone to the publication first.

Moreover, I should have made clear first, my distaste is not with the club at
large for those views. Rather, it is with the person who stated those views,
and those who defended them without ever addressing my concerns.
May 12, 2004 12:18:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

samvanga@aol.com (SamVanga) wrote in message news:<20040510040858.04129.00001164@mb-m16.aol.com>...
> > cut us some slack here, it's a newsletter for gosh sakes.
>
> Did you read my other replies? The bulk of the newsletter is quite good.
> Even the main elements of the article in question are fine.
>
> However, that those comments were in the publication, despite otherwise
> excellent work, suggests all the more their intent. I appreciate that author
> opinions are just that. However, two (even one) small sentences in the one
> single article with such comments, is not an unreasonable burden.
*NJH: I have to correct myself here because I think I may have given
readers and Mr Vanga the wrong perception. The Citadel does have a
"Masthead" on the inside front cover. It's not nearly as elaborate as
the magazines I cited in my original post. However, the Masthead does
have a notice in Italics that reads as follows: "The views expressed
in this publication are solely those of the authors."
I did not mean to give the impression that the Citadel has no Masthead
at all. It's just that the Citadel's is a "bare bones" Masthead. Once
again I apologize for any misperception that may have occurred in this
regard.
Cheers
NJH
Anonymous
May 12, 2004 12:34:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

[posted and mailed]

Arthur Brooking startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words
of wisdom

> I object, however to the tone of your post. It is full of ad hominem
> attacks ("snotty", "self-important", "sheer ignorance", "stupidity",
> "self-assumed smug arrogance", and "puke"). Rather than merely being a
> protest against what I wrote, it is a rather unflattering portrait of
> my life as a person.

Although I am no authority, an ad hominem attack would be if he devalued
your opinion of Canadian customs officials because you were American. None
of what you describe is an ad hominem attack. It's simply criticism.

I'd be interested in seeing a copy of the article if it could be posted.
You might find that other non Americans find the tone smug as well. I've
found in business that American not used to foreigners often do seem so.

However I think you should cut SamVanga some slack. Being Canadian he has
to constantly deal with smart bastards like me on the Internet who point
out that he doesn't come from a real country. It's sure to engender a chip
on one's shoulder against the country that prevented them from having a
Internal Dialing Code and being a real country too.

--
rob singers
pull finger to reply
May 12, 2004 12:34:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

Robert Singers <rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94E7D1381FAE4rsingers@IP-Hidden>...
> [posted and mailed]
>
> Arthur Brooking startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words
> of wisdom
>
> > I object, however to the tone of your post. It is full of ad hominem
> > attacks ("snotty", "self-important", "sheer ignorance", "stupidity",
> > "self-assumed smug arrogance", and "puke"). Rather than merely being a
> > protest against what I wrote, it is a rather unflattering portrait of
> > my life as a person.
>
> Although I am no authority, an ad hominem attack would be if he devalued
> your opinion of Canadian customs officials because you were American. None
> of what you describe is an ad hominem attack. It's simply criticism.
*NJH: An ad hominem attack is an attack directly on the person. At the
very least referring to someone as "the puke" certainly qualifies. But
as Mr Brooking and Mr Vanga have buried the hatchet, if we should
continue this discussion about ad hominem attacks perhaps it would be
wise to first define the term "ad hominem" in mutually acceptable
terms, and then use some of the past T&B exchanges to search for more
obvious examples.

> I'd be interested in seeing a copy of the article if it could be posted.
> You might find that other non Americans find the tone smug as well. I've
> found in business that American not used to foreigners often do seem so.
*NJH: NHMGS produces very few copies beyond the needs of the
membership. I'd post the article, but NHMGS no longer holds the
copyright to the article. If you send me your address off-line I'll
see if I can find a back issue. Or, failing that, for educational
purposes I can photocopy the article.

> However I think you should cut SamVanga some slack. Being Canadian he has
> to constantly deal with smart bastards like me on the Internet who point
> out that he doesn't come from a real country. It's sure to engender a chip
> on one's shoulder against the country that prevented them from having a
> Internal Dialing Code and being a real country too.
*NJH: If he has you dogging his trail and constantly taking shots at
him, he's certainly entitled to be a bit jumpy. :-)
Cheers
NJH
Anonymous
May 12, 2004 10:31:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"Robert Singers" <rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94E7D1381FAE4rsingers@IP-Hidden...
> [posted and mailed]
>
> Arthur Brooking startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words
> of wisdom
>
> > I object, however to the tone of your post. It is full of ad hominem
> > attacks ("snotty", "self-important", "sheer ignorance", "stupidity",
> > "self-assumed smug arrogance", and "puke"). Rather than merely being a
> > protest against what I wrote, it is a rather unflattering portrait of
> > my life as a person.
>
> Although I am no authority, an ad hominem attack would be if he devalued
> your opinion of Canadian customs officials because you were American.
None
> of what you describe is an ad hominem attack. It's simply criticism.
>
> I'd be interested in seeing a copy of the article if it could be posted.
> You might find that other non Americans find the tone smug as well. I've
> found in business that American not used to foreigners often do seem so.
>
> However I think you should cut SamVanga some slack. Being Canadian he has
> to constantly deal with smart bastards like me on the Internet who point
> out that he doesn't come from a real country. It's sure to engender a
chip
> on one's shoulder against the country that prevented them from having a
> Internal Dialing Code and being a real country too.

I understood SamVanga was American and was leaping to the defence of
American
Customs Officers. But your confusion is understandable, your coming from
from such a backward province of Austrailia and all.
Anonymous
May 13, 2004 3:13:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

Out from under a rock popped jahwheeler and said

> I understood SamVanga was American and was leaping to the defence of
> American Customs Officers. But your confusion is understandable, your
> coming from from such a backward province of Austrailia and all.

That is indeed possible. Rereading it I'm unsure which side of the border
he was refering to. However in another post he mentions both North and
South borders, and barring Alaska, it is likely he's standing on the US
side, not Canada.

However you sir are doubly disadvantaged. Not coming from a real country
and being too stupid to work out what real country others come from.

--
rob singers
pull finger to reply
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
Anonymous
May 13, 2004 5:22:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"Robert Singers" <rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94E8721F8C6E8rsingers@IP-Hidden...
> Out from under a rock popped jahwheeler and said
>
> > I understood SamVanga was American and was leaping to the defence of
> > American Customs Officers. But your confusion is understandable, your
> > coming from from such a backward province of Austrailia and all.
>
> That is indeed possible. Rereading it I'm unsure which side of the border
> he was refering to. However in another post he mentions both North and
> South borders, and barring Alaska, it is likely he's standing on the US
> side, not Canada.
>
> However you sir are doubly disadvantaged. Not coming from a real country
> and being too stupid to work out what real country others come from.
>

You're from New Zealand, are you not? Even less of a country, as I noted
above. You guys don't even have a real air force anymore (notice the semi
on topic military reference :)  ).
Anonymous
May 13, 2004 12:31:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

jahwheeler startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words of
wisdom

> You're from New Zealand, are you not? Even less of a country, as I
> noted above. You guys don't even have a real air force anymore (notice
> the semi on topic military reference :)  ).

The idea that NZ is less of a country than Canada is farcical. For
example there are millions of Americans who want to holiday in NZ
whereas you have trouble getting more than three ardent (some would say
fanatical) gamers to a con. And what ever way you want to look at it,
if I were to ring you I’d be dialling 01. You only have to look in a
phone book to see that every real country in the world has it’s own
code.

Anyway we only have to google this NG for confirmation from other NGers
that Canada isn't a real country.

--
rob singers
pull finger to reply
Anonymous
May 13, 2004 7:16:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

Robert Singers <rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94E8D0C4E369Arsingers@IP-Hidden>...

>
> Anyway we only have to google this NG for confirmation from other NGers
> that Canada isn't a real country.

BJ: Well, several of my US friends who travel extensively overseas are
using a Canadian(or in one case,an Irish) passport in certain
circumstances. Right now, a US Passport can be "Really" dangerous.

It appears that Canadian passports are available under certain
conditions-though two of my friends are naturalized US citizens that
kept their Canadian citizenship(dual citizenship is a handy thing).

A note on the Irish passport, my friend, who has a very Irish last
name, is an American born citizen, BUT, if you can prove Irish descent
from the Emerald Isle it seems you are entitled to the passport. He
uses it on many of his overseas trips at hotels,etc.

Several international corporations are also encouraging and helping
their US employees to be less conspicuous.

Dead give-aways of US citizenship are the shoes, general loudness,
fanny packs worn in front, loud colors in clothes, ice in drinks, fork
in the wrong(for the rest of the world) hand, jewelled crucifixes,
socks with sandals, and wristwatches with metal bands.

The US Olympic Committee is offering training in being a less obvious
US athlete in Athens. This will also require good sportsmanship on our
part playing a greater role than in the past.

I think Canada has just about got the "real" thing right.

BJ
Anonymous
May 13, 2004 9:24:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

>However in another post he mentions both North and
>South borders, and barring Alaska, it is likely he's standing on the US
>side, not Canada.

Hello,

Just for clairification purposes. I am in the US. My reference to both
Northern and Southern borders was from the US point of view (i.e. both Canadian
and Mexican crossings in both directions).
Anonymous
May 14, 2004 1:49:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

Out from under a rock popped SamVanga and said

> Just for clairification purposes. I am in the US. My reference to
> both Northern and Southern borders was from the US point of view (i.e.
> both Canadian and Mexican crossings in both directions).

Goodo. Still doesn't make Canada a real country tho' :-)

--
rob singers
pull finger to reply
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
Anonymous
May 14, 2004 2:34:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

Out from under a rock popped Bob Jones and said

> Dead give-aways of US citizenship are the shoes, general loudness,
> fanny packs worn in front, loud colors in clothes, ice in drinks, fork
> in the wrong(for the rest of the world) hand, jewelled crucifixes,
> socks with sandals, and wristwatches with metal bands.

Just a couple of notes. You forget to mention the badly cut shorts and the
general mismatching of clothing styles and colours, as well as bad hair
cuts.

More importantly you may not be aware that to a large amount of the rest of
the world "fanny" is specifically a Lady's front bottom, not a gender non
specific back bottom. So the term "fanny pack" can cause great amusement.

--
rob singers
pull finger to reply
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
Anonymous
May 14, 2004 2:34:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

Robert Singers <rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94E96B8BC2C0Ersingers@IP-Hidden>...
> Out from under a rock popped Bob Jones and said
>
> > Dead give-aways of US citizenship are the shoes, general loudness,
> > fanny packs worn in front, loud colors in clothes, ice in drinks, fork
> > in the wrong(for the rest of the world) hand, jewelled crucifixes,
> > socks with sandals, and wristwatches with metal bands.
>
> Just a couple of notes. You forget to mention the badly cut shorts and the
> general mismatching of clothing styles and colours, as well as bad hair
> cuts.

BJ: True. The men's hair cuts also denote class in the US. I had a
friend that said he could accurately predict the socio-economic class
of anyone in the US by just observing their haircuts-certainly the
mullet, mohawk, white side walls, and strangely dyed odd cuts are
seldom seen in some circles and quite common in others. Conversely
the Northeastern, and Ivy League's, carefully arranged, casually
combed, slightly shaggy coif is seen a lot in young(and old) monied
circles; The perfectly trimmed do's of Evangelicals and Mormons is
easily spotted, as is the West coast "Player" slick back. Ethnic
corn-rows, dreadlocks, and bowl cuts are also pretty group specific.

Europeans tend to the Northeastern look except in England, who tend to
share our predeliction for strange tonsorial styles.

BJ
Anonymous
May 14, 2004 6:36:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

>Dead give-aways of US citizenship are the shoes, general loudness,
>fanny packs worn in front, loud colors in clothes, ice in drinks, fork
>in the wrong(for the rest of the world) hand, jewelled crucifixes,
>socks with sandals, and wristwatches with metal bands.

I always laugh about the loudness thing. Compared to the French, Singaporese,
some British (minority, but real), most Americans I've met overseas are very
quiet and far less pushy. In fact, compared to many of the French and
Singaporese vastly quieter and less pushy.
Anonymous
May 17, 2004 1:13:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

Out from under a rock popped SamVanga and said

> I always laugh about the loudness thing. Compared to the French,
> Singaporese, some British (minority, but real), most Americans I've
> met overseas are very quiet and far less pushy. In fact, compared to
> many of the French and Singaporese vastly quieter and less pushy.

I surpose it's partly a combination thing. You can always tell when a
cruise boat of Americans are in town. The loud voices and clothes give
them a way instantly.

--
rob singers
pull finger to reply
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
Anonymous
May 17, 2004 5:03:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message news:<109sh6l5v0rpr65@corp.supernews.com>...
> "M. J. Parks" <parx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
> news:<109n6og942d9i49@corp.supernews.com>...
>
> > > Dear Mr. Jones,
> > >
> > > After long and extensive consideration lasting almost 1.3 seconds, I am
> very
> > > sorry to inform you that I must deny with prejudice your request to
> > > re-engage in an off-topic discussion.
> > >
> > > I realize that this comes as unwelcome news to you and that it
> constitutes a
> > > tragic blow. However, I remind you that it's always darkest before the
> dawn,
> > > that every cloud has a silver lining, etc. I therefore urge you to try
> to
> > > carry on as best you can and are hopeful that you will find some degree
> of
> > > success in your other endeavors.
> > >
> > > I remain, your most humble and obedient servant,
> > >
> > > Ty
> >
> > Ty,
> >
> > You know you're itching.... Been a while.
>
> Dear Mr. Parks,
>
> You overestimate me.

Never....

> Besides, I get paid to argue (I'm a lawyer).

I'll try not to hold that against you.

> If done in
> small quantities, arguing in my spare time can be useful as practice. But if
> done in large quantities, it can exhaust my arguing energy for paying
> clients. It's bad enough to waste time on pointless and unrewarding
> flamewars. It's worse when it costs you money.

If what I've seen before is practice, whew.

> Now while I believe that arguing about an issue can be beneficial because it
> can help clarify my thinking and illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of
> each side, I find that there are severe limitations. In a usenet forum,
> cowardly opponents can simply ignore your counterpoints, refuse to answer
> legitimate questions, attempt to shift the debate to irrelevant issues, etc.
> Other folks can jump into the middle of a debate and distract the issues.
> The lack of nonverbal cues -- and sloppy typing -- can unintentionally
> offend the other side or simply obfuscate the piont you're trying to make.
> The sloppy way that folks (including me) throw around defined terms --
> without defining them in the current discussion -- add to the confusion.
> (Consider a simple example -- a debate on whether a certain military action
> was "moral". How can we discuss that meaningfully without agreeing on what
> the definition of "morality" is?) There's also the problem that a great many
> political debates (which seem to predominate our OT flamewars) turn on
> factual matters which are in dispute. This forum is simply not capable of
> resolving the factual issues.

The exercise of airing out positions is not ment to resolve any
issues. If we could do that, my God, the mini's we could buy. We'd be
uber-rich. The well-founded arguements of ONE or both sides, enriches
all. Most importantly, it enlightens AND entertains me. The most
highest of endeavors. You do not need practice, but appreciation. As
do all, actually. It has been an informative trip that has
characterized this board now and for some time. I simply miss the
posts. You ain't practicin', but luvin'. Others are too....

> So, such discussions quickly become bogged down in an intellectual version
> of the Western Front in WWI.
>
> And even if you have a reasonable disputant on the other side of the issue,
> the fact remains that these kind of off-topic flamewars pretty quickly
> exhaust their benefit stream. Most folks are simply not willing to change
> their cherished beliefs no matter how much contra evidence is produced. This
> is a fact that I am only recently becoming aware of -- my gaming buddies
> have poked fun at me for decades because of my absurd and naive belief that
> anyone will see the light if things are simply explained clearly enough to
> them.

Argue them into a circle... You've just talked yourself into one ;) . I
only care for my benefit stream here. Since it doesn't get me a woman
in a compromised position, wweell...... Your point of view is still
cherished...

> So if the best you can do is offer me an off-topic discussion on Iraq, the
> presidential campaign, etc., then I must respectfully decline the
> invitation. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. I simply can't see any
> likely benefit that will offset the effort involved.

There is too many good subjects here, to abandon the effort. But, the
stress (and I honestly believe in a world wide stress over this
issue), slaps us all down. That's why some come here. Honest info and
opinion cleared here amongst friends, mean much. I've seen too much
effort from YOU, not to be entertained and well educated by your
posts.

> But if you can come up with a new and interesting topic for an OT flamewar,
> I'll be happy to reconsider my decision.

Flamewar?! Nawh.. Just a passion filled jamboree....

> Your humble and obsequious servant,

Oh, just friends will do. How are FFT's part 3 doing?

See Ya, Mark
May 17, 2004 9:37:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"M. J. Parks" <parx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1f7af36a.0405170003.25ccb442@posting.google.com...
> "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
news:<109sh6l5v0rpr65@corp.supernews.com>...

> > If done in
> > small quantities, arguing in my spare time can be useful as practice.
But if
> > done in large quantities, it can exhaust my arguing energy for paying
> > clients. It's bad enough to waste time on pointless and unrewarding
> > flamewars. It's worse when it costs you money.
>
> If what I've seen before is practice, whew.


Yeah, tell me about it...

....

> > So if the best you can do is offer me an off-topic discussion on Iraq,
the
> > presidential campaign, etc., then I must respectfully decline the
> > invitation. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. I simply can't see
any
> > likely benefit that will offset the effort involved.
>
> There is too many good subjects here, to abandon the effort. But, the
> stress (and I honestly believe in a world wide stress over this
> issue), slaps us all down. That's why some come here. Honest info and
> opinion cleared here amongst friends, mean much. I've seen too much
> effort from YOU, not to be entertained and well educated by your
> posts.
>
> > But if you can come up with a new and interesting topic for an OT
flamewar,
> > I'll be happy to reconsider my decision.
>
> Flamewar?! Nawh.. Just a passion filled jamboree....
>
> > Your humble and obsequious servant,
>
> Oh, just friends will do. How are FFT's part 3 doing?

Slowly. We have all the systems defined and playtested, but re-rating 500 or
so vehicles is proving to be a bit of a chore.

--Ty
Anonymous
May 17, 2004 1:30:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

parx@earthlink.net (M. J. Parks) wrote in message news:<1f7af36a.0405082318.663e76b5@posting.google.com>...
> highwiremedia@earthlink.net (Bob Jones) wrote in message news:<73e9b810.0405061531.4f02c59d@posting.google.com>...
> > "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message news:<109kbs56p27rk7c@corp.supernews.com>...
> >
> > Over to you, Ty.
>
> Where's he been?

BJ: Since he is a tax specialist, I would suspect that April and parts
of May would be a heavy period for him and a good part of his income.
He'll soon have more time on his hands.
>
> > BJ
> >
> > PS Is the Blue in the French 1814 uniform the same shade as in 1803?
>
> The white uniforms ruined everthing....

BJ: Actually, I thought the white uniform was in 1809 due to dye
shortages brought on by the Continental System.
>
> > Are Old Glory's price increases related to tin prices, general
> > inflationary pressures, OG's dominance of the market, or does Russ
> > need a new Mercedes? All of the above?
>
> You know, years ago, (if it's the same people), Russ's wife fished me
> out of a Historicon (95', 96'?) dealers area crowd and gave me $120.00
> of free ACW lead after pruchasing $800.00 worth the day before. I hope
> Russ got a new Mercedes. Be nice to ride in it...

BJ: Russ is a good marketer-a 15% discount is often used to reward
good customers. Of course, this is entirely unrelated to why the
price increases have occured, which given the weakness of the dollar,
the crimp in tin stockpiles, and inflationary pressures in the
economy, may be quite warranted. However, I'd love to know the actual
economics of the increase-which all manufacturers will applaud, but
their remarks must always be viewed in light of their obvious
self-interest.

>
> > Why has no one used the new miniature sound circuit boards to allow
> > sound effects for wargames?
>
> Belches and farts weren't enough?

BJ: I just thought that it could be a nice touch to take a basic step
in using a technology that model railroading is using to good effect.
Sounds such as church bells, cows mooing, auto traffic, station
announcements, road work machinery, etc. is adding a nice realistic
touch to the MR scene.

I could see "talking" wargame scenery units with sound chips hidden in
buildings, woods, artillery caissons(finally a use for these expensive
items), or in hills. The sounds of artillery firing, musketry fire,
drums playing the pas de charge, or bands playing the Marseilles, men
shouting, horses whinnying, etc. could be injected into the wargame
play either by random cycling, or a simple button, or remote radio
control.

The audio could be digitally recorded at reenactments, or taken from
movie soundtracks.

BJ
!